I must say in reference to last week's News-Letter article "Council issues stinging rebuke of University administration," I never thought I would see a day when the Student Council and News-Letter were on the same page.
I'd like to continue this strange bedfellows situation and applaud the Student Council for finally taking a position against the administration, which generally operates aloof from meaningful student input, a situation I believe to be engendered and enabled by one repugnant institution that reigns supreme at Hopkins: the committee.
Over my nearly four years here I have been a part of several of the committees referenced in the article, such as arts, disability, student life and the SAC.
There are three types of unacceptable committees that get set up at Hopkins: the fact-finding, the intermediary and the flat-out silly.
The fact-finding committees are set up to examine perceived problems on campus such as disability, gender issues, etc. Intermediary committees are composed of, at least in part, undergraduates organized to tell the higher-ups about general student concerns or give input on potential policy changes. The silly we'll get to later.
The primary problem with the fact-finding committees is that they generally have no oversight, funding or resources and don't regularly consist of anyone in a position of power not already familiar with the problems at hand. They amount to empty intellectual outsourcing with no muscle to do anything beyond think.
Also, the task of exploration tends just to get in the way of solving a problem. Take for example, a Homewood committee on disability. Levering Hall is a glaring violation of almost every recommendation in the Americans with Disabilities Act, not to mention an outright fire hazard for anyone with limited mobility.
We don't need a group to talk in nuanced intangibles while very concrete and obvious problems wait to be addressed. The ADA was passed in 1990. A period of 18 years is far beyond a reasonable time frame to make our buildings safe for all. Dialog regarding disability has its place but when there are glaring problems, the only way to solve them is action.
The intermediary committees intended to express student opinions to various administrators are also ineffectual. Only in very small numbers are students allowed to participate on committees with actual influence. A handful of students can hardly be seen as representative of the general student body.
The students who sit on these committees are hand-selected by administrators. And even if these students had an ax to grind, they have much more to gain by being congenial yes-men. In the end, student input on these committees inevitably becomes pandering and networking, nothing more.
Now for the silly committees: I take as the paragon of a silly committee the Homewood Traditions Committee. I find something about a concerted effort to establish traditions contradictory to the very concept of a tradition. The contradictory nature of a traditions committee is only highlighted by recent administrative actions which have nearly blotted out proud, existing undergraduate traditions at Homewood.
I sat on the SAC last year while the Hopkins Pep Band, which has not missed a lacrosse or football game since its inception in the 1920s, was desperately scrounging for money to fund its spring travel. Students appealed to the SAC, deans' offices and the Athletic Center, and somehow no one could come up with the cash.
So while actual Hopkins traditions atrophied and came close to dying, the Traditions Committee was sipping coffee and wondering if robin's egg blue really was the most complimentary shade against marble and brick.
I have come to this conclusion: The overarching problem with these committees is that they exist not as a stop-gap between a problem and public perception. The committees are designed to do what they do best which is nothing at all. They are intended to sound well-meaning and thoughtful so that when an outside source asks, "What's being done on X issue" someone can reply, "Ah, yes, the Committee On X has made some thoughtful recommendations."
The Committee On X has served its one purpose, not to address the issue but to address public concern surrounding the issue, should there ever be any.
Let me be clear in my condemnations. I have no reason to think the people responsible for these committees are anything but decent. Whenever the University makes a policy change such as the ones regarding internship credit or sophomore housing, I bet the choice was purely financial. But the buffer of a committee allows these decisions to be cloaked in an aura of thought and substance or worse, it allows serious problems to persist in the name of ongoing study.
The optimist in me sees the Student Council's action as a means to possibly addressing the intolerable fa??ade of our Hopkins culture of committees. However, the humor columnist in me holds a bizarre, wry hope for an invitation to join the Committee to Address the Inadequacy of Committees. If the past is any indication, I think I just might get that wish.
